AN OPENING FOR WARRIOR DEMOCRATS

A couple days ago the Times reported that in 2005 Rumsfeld, then the Secretary of Defense, aborted a strike in Pakistan on what could have been 'high value' Taliban and Al Qaeda targets. There were concerns that the operation would have been diplomatically risky considering Pakistan wouldn't have sanctioned the raid which would have inserted a small SEAL team into the tribal areas of Pakistan's remote northern regions. Should knowledge of such an incursion have reached the local populace, it could have further destabilized Musharraf's tenuous hold on the country and, additionally, should the soldiers have failed in their mission, or been captured, the US could have suffered a painful and humiliating lesson in the limitations of special forces warfare. Without knowledge of the specific operating environment (though many on the operational side were begging the administration to give them a chance to execute) it's hard to know whether the administration made the right decision. Nevertheless, there is a political opportunity here for the Democratic presidential candidates.

The principle objection many Americans have to the Democratic party is that, fairly or unfairly, Pelosi, Reid and their ilk have been branded 'soft' on the war on terror, on national defense, and, in general, on all matters of national security. Instead of ignoring and accepting this charge, Democrats should work to dismantle their perceived national security Achilles heel. Much like Bush did in '00 by running a successful campaign of 'compassionate conservatism', Democrats should rework their image by becoming more hawkish on terrorism. That doesn't mean advocating the status quo in Iraq, it means finding smarter and more effective ways to establish a more 'militant' facet to an otherwise socially conscious and progressive party. One such opportunity is the aborted mission in Pakistan.

The Democratic candidates should come out hard against Rumsfeld's conservative decision not to deploy special forces. Such a position would do much to excite independents and even some Republicans wavering on whether to vote for the GOP in '08 because of Bush's egregious and startling incompetence in Afghanistan and Iraq. The issue of whether or not such an operation would have been in the best interest of the US is irrelevant for now. The vociferous condemnation of Republican squeamishness in war could be the first step to undoing years worth of right wing propaganda and might give that would-be Democratic president a chance to harden up on defense in light of recent threats to London, JFK, and Fort Dix. For candidates looking to pick up those essential centrists who are justifiably uncomfortable with the Democrats lack of vision when it comes to combating terrorism, this could be an easy way to score points on defense and steal some thunder from terrorism hawks like McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson.